[Advaita-l] How does Brahman witness everything?

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Hi Greg, nice thread of discussion! Are you still sponsoring Advaita
classes in NYC?
Just as asmat and yushmad are linked incomprehensively, so too sAkshi and
sAkshya are so linked - one will not appear without the other. Of course,
sAkshi is unchanging svarupa so how will it change to appear as sAkshya?
Appearance does not entail change like snake/rope or blue sky.

"Hence (*ityataḥ*/and so), the superimposition (*adhyāsaḥ*) of the object
which is represented by notion ‘you’ and its attributes (*dharmāṇāṁ*) on
the subject which is represented by the notion ‘I’ (*asmat pratyaya gocare*)
... shall equally be illogical (*mithyeti bhavitum yuktam*).

//..In spite of the other not being an object of sense perception (
*apratyakṣe*), ignorant people superimpose place dirt on space (*ākāśe
bālāḥ talamalinat*), etc. on it.

//...In the same way (*evam*) he superimposes (*adhyasyati*) the internal
organ that produces (*aśeṣa svapracārasākṣiṇi*/completely showing one’s
self) the one who has the object of the “I” thought with all his activities
(*ahaṁ pratyayinam*) on the inner Self (*pratyagātmānaṁ*), the witness of
the entire modification of the internal organ (*pratyagātmānaṁ sarva
sākṣiṇaṁ*) and vice versa the inner Self (*viparyayeṇā antaḥkaraṇādiṣu*),
the all-witness is superimposed on the internal organ and the rest. Such is
this (*evam ayam*) superimposition (*adhyāso*) which is without beginning
and the end (*anādirananto*), natural (*naisargiko'*), delusive (
*mithyāpratyayarūpaḥ*) and productive of the notion of agency and
enjoyership (*kartṛtva bhoktṛtva pravartakaḥ*)(in the individual self) and
which is experienced by all (*sarvalokapratyakṣaḥ*). -Adhyasa Bhasya"

On Fri, May 27, 2022 at 12:03 PM KAMESWARARAO MULA via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Dear Sh. Srrenivasa Murthy,
> I request you kindly to have a good and solid foundation of
> Upanishadicteachings.
> True, I don't have much knowledge on Upanishadic Teachings as I never
> studied them thoroughly.As advised , I will try to read into deep aspects
> of Upanishads over a period of time. Thank you
> Then , but your mentioned that: Sakshi cannot be sakshyam. But Sakshyam is
> Sakshi only.
>
> I don't agree with the above statement according to Indian LAW:
>
> Sakshi (Witnessed) & Sakshyam (Evidence) are different, both shoundn't be
> same, never be.
> You say Sakshyam is Sakshi only: WRONG, Judge won't agree, Saskhyam
> (Evidence) Can't be Sakshi (Witnessed)
> SAKSHI (Witnessed): He has seen that, he will say that he was there at
> that place, he witnessed it, But he can never be an eidence (sakshyam)
> SAKSHYAM(Evidence): It can be a person/object/material/any thing
> It is required to make the Judgement and who shouldn't be the SAKSHI, Then
> there arises a biasedness.
> Hope I am clear in views.
> Learners are requested to add their valuable comments
>
> There are no two things like sakshi and sakshi according to Upanishads.
> NO Both are different, they can't be the same.
> Sri Guru Padaravindarpana Mastu
> Kameswara
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>